<<<The state of Mens Tennis>>> [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

<<<The state of Mens Tennis>>>

RealityRyan
01-21-2004, 02:50 AM
Men's Tennis as of now...

If this sport is going to get watched, get ratings, and most of all grow. You need a rivalry and you need domination by one or two people. It didn't work with Pete he was too boring and I think that was actually bad for tennis that he didn't show emotion. As much as it's a sport it's entertainment too. I think Andre was always a fan favorite just because he was so entertaining. When people get bored watching tennis they stop caring about it and stop playing. Long gone are the days of a bitter rivalry like Mac and Connors. Did you know that during that era of tennis ratings in the US on avg. were 25% higher?

If you want to see this sport grow you better hope for someone fiery like Roddick dominates because if it's Federer, get ready for another age of boring Tennis. Not that Federer or Pete are bad guys but, they lack the emotion and intrigue which will draw people to watch this sport. That's why right now it's crucial for the sport that the top men step up, take hold, separate themselves and say I am the best. Right now it's unclear and too close. I think I tried making this point at the beginning of my last thread but it got twisted.

You look at what's wrong with Men's tennis today and it's the Talent pool. The kinda of talent pool that is there for Football, Baseball, Basketball, and Soccer isn't there. Why? Because people have to watch tennis and love it, you know get into it first before they spend their lives and money teaching there kids how to play. Don't get me wrong people do that now and today’s players are good and in fact more athletic than yesterdays players but, they aren’t physically gifted like a Michael Vick (Football), Derek Jeter (Baseball), Randy Moss (Football), Allen Iverson (Basketball), David Beckham (soccer), etc. the list goes on. These guys have world-class abilities. Their times on the track, their vertical leap, etc. dog an even the top prof. Tennis player. The best athletes don't play tennis as of now.

So to get the talent pool to grow and pull in better athletes, Tennis needs to become more interesting. If you look at the Women’s side it's alot more interesting that the men’s side. You have two top players that have separated themselves. The Williams have done that, the Williams are that 21st century athlete I am talking about. Muscular, fit, quick, and just purely athletically superior to their competition. Now what makes that interesting is that you have challengers like Kimmy C and JHH who make it really fun to watch as they try to beat these guys. To see if they can be the ones to take them down…

I don’t like the state of Men’s Tennis. I think that for it to really become a draw, we need domination by the top Men. Once that happens interest in the sport will rise and the talent pool will grow. Things like making the sport cheaper and adding some slams to the tour would help in raising interest in the sport again as well.

But as I sit and watch the poor coverage of the Aussie Open on ESPN 2. I think to myself, the reason why it's on this crappy channel is no one wants to cover this. It deserves to be covered better. I remember in the 80's/early 90's (in that era I was talking about) HBO covered Wimbly and the major networks covered the others (I am talking about the whole open too not just the semi's and finals)(abc,nbc,cbs). It was covered all day by HBO too, there were no movies, it was Tennis durning the day and highlights at night. This is all symptomatic of the same problem. A loss of intrest in Tennis...mainly Men's(just because it's the biggest draw)....

Deboogle!.
01-21-2004, 02:54 AM
Why did you post this in the AO thread? It would get more views/responses in General Messages.

and god, I don't want to prejudge or insult you but if you think you're gonna get good responses from this post on this board, you really have got another thing coming.

RealityRyan
01-21-2004, 03:03 AM
Why did you post this in the AO thread? It would get more views/responses in General Messages.

and god, I don't want to prejudge or insult you but if you think you're gonna get good responses from this post on this board, you really have got another thing coming.

I am sure, it will be fun..

Shy
01-21-2004, 03:05 AM
I feel that people doesn't give guys like Federer or Ferrero a chance. They have very interesting personality. I find Roger to be an outgoing person off-court.

RealityRyan
01-21-2004, 03:11 AM
I feel that people doesn't give guys like Federer or Ferrero a chance. They have very interesting personality. I find Roger to be an outgoing person off-court.

Oh no doubt. I watched a Fed interview today on AO.com(btw a great website, I love the way it's run with all the video highlights)...he's really witty and funny. Unfortunitly it's on the court that counts. His actions on court are what people will watch mostly. I think David Nalbandy is has a pretty cool presence on cool. He gets fired up. That's more or less what the sport needs I think...

liS@
01-21-2004, 03:22 AM
If you look at the Women’s side it's a lot more interesting that the men’s side. You have two top players that have separated themselves.

I don’t like the state of Men’s Tennis. I think that for it to really become a draw, we need domination by the top Men. Once that happens interest in the sport will rise and the talent pool will grow.

But as I sit and watch the poor coverage of the Aussie Open on ESPN 2. I think to myself, the reason why it's on this crappy channel is no one wants to cover this. It deserves to be covered better.


Wow is the women's really more interesting than the men's?!!?? :confused:

I thought less domination was suppose to lure more interest due to lack of unpredictability and a diversity of personalities. Four different GS winners a yr is more preferable isn't it? Well plenty of domination can be found on ESPN's poor coverage by Andre and Andy, and that's not always spectaculary popular. (BTW Andy is having no trouble w/ Ulihrach I see ;))

RealityRyan
01-21-2004, 03:37 AM
Wow is the women's really more interesting than the men's?!!?? :confused:

I thought less domination was suppose to lure more interest due to lack of unpredictability and a diversity of personalities. Four different GS winners a yr is more preferable isn't it? Well plenty of domination can be found on ESPN's poor coverage by Andre and Andy, and that's not always spectaculary popular. (BTW Andy is having no trouble w/ Ulihrach I see ;))

Yea women's tennis has been more interesting for years. Where have you been? Men's tennis the bigger draw and always will be thou...

No paridy is a bad for Tennis, you need a few good men where not just anybody can win. It's hard to get behind that, as fans. It's easier to follow if there are a couple big names to look for. The women's game has that..

You know that's not what I mean...(A-Rod beating on a nobody)

Deboogle!.
01-21-2004, 03:39 AM
uhhhh.... I strongly disagree. With the exception of a few players, I cannot stand women's tennis. Men's however, I'll watch any men's match!

RealityRyan
01-21-2004, 03:43 AM
uhhhh.... I strongly disagree. With the exception of a few players, I cannot stand women's tennis. Men's however, I'll watch any men's match!

That's cool but, that isn't everyone...some people like the fact that men's tennis is full of paridy and so open. As they lay person that isn't into tennis it's hard to follow. It's good for tennis when there are couple big names that grab all the head lines. "Such and Such" did it again. That makes people watch...for better or worse...

Shy
01-21-2004, 03:43 AM
uhhhh.... I strongly disagree. With the exception of a few players, I cannot stand women's tennis. Men's however, I'll watch any men's match!
I do agree. Even a match between a qual.and a top 10 is interesting wich isn't the case with the woman. By the way, congratulation on your acceptance.

Chloe le Bopper
01-21-2004, 03:47 AM
The view that the women are more full of personality and what not, is a farce. As opposed to viewing the women as athletes as athletes, people view them as stars and personalities. The men are respected as athletes. It's a crap gender thing.

RealityRyan
01-21-2004, 03:52 AM
The view that the women are more full of personality and what not, is a farce. As opposed to viewing the women as athletes as athletes, people view them as stars and personalities. The men are respected as athletes. It's a crap gender thing.

Disagree women's tennis is interesting because there are gaints. There are names that people always look for do well. It's interesting because the stars never bow out early(it's rare). On the men's side upsets are more common. It's hard for the general public to follow with all these different names coming up. Again, to make a sport watched/make it grow and interesting you need the general public to get into it.

Deboogle!.
01-21-2004, 04:56 AM
I do agree. Even a match between a qual.and a top 10 is interesting wich isn't the case with the woman. By the way, congratulation on your acceptance.

Yes I totally agree. Any men's match is more interesting lol. In other sports like skating and gymnastics I like to watch women. but in tennis, give me the men lol

and awwwwwww thank you!!!!!!!!!

Deboogle!.
01-21-2004, 04:57 AM
Disagree women's tennis is interesting because there are gaints. There are names that people always look for do well. It's interesting because the stars never bow out early(it's rare). On the men's side upsets are more common. It's hard for the general public to follow with all these different names coming up. Again, to make a sport watched/make it grow and interesting you need the general public to get into it.


hellloooooooo all the different names and talents make it INTERESTING!!!!!!!!!!

RealityRyan
01-21-2004, 02:57 PM
hellloooooooo all the different names and talents make it INTERESTING!!!!!!!!!!

Oh yea, no doubt about that. It makes it interesting and unpredictable for you and me to watch. You never know and anybody could win.

For people to get pulled in you need one or two people that are really good. Like Tiger Woods for golf, I never watch golf but, I know Tiger woods.Why is that? Because he is soo good and very marketable. Dale Earnhart Jr. or Jeff Gorden for Nascar, I never watch that but, I know who they.(again they are kickass and very marketable)

Ask the lay person about Men's tennis they might know who Andre or Andy is but, generally they won't have any idea. Ask the lay person about women's tennis everybody knows the Williams sisters. When people hear about exceptional talent they watch..right now they are'nt hearing anything about Men's tennis....

Deboogle!.
01-21-2004, 03:18 PM
You are a walking contradictory dichotomy

TennisLurker
01-21-2004, 03:38 PM
RR, many people find Andy boring, and I am not talking about people who like tennis.

My brother who knows nothing about tennis, said, this sport is a piece of shit after watching Andy serving 2 aces, and 2 unretunable serves in another of his oh so many serving games with no rallies.
I dont think Andy plays a very entertaining tennis, and certainly I dont think many people will become tennis fans by watching Andy playing.

RealityRyan
01-21-2004, 03:57 PM
RR, many people find Andy boring, and I am not talking about people who like tennis.

My brother who knows nothing about tennis, said, this sport is a piece of shit after watching Andy serving 2 aces, and 2 unretunable serves in another of his oh so many serving games with no rallies.
I dont think Andy plays a very entertaining tennis, and certainly I dont think many people will become tennis fans by watching Andy playing.

Again, you are right but at the same time you are wrong. Andy is very marketable, good looking, young, and plays a brand of tennis that catches alot of eyes. The hard the hard hitting, big serve, big forehand, offensive type of player is always going to draw more intrest. Sampras might have been the best player but how many endorsements did he have? He didn't have hardly any. How many endorsements did Andre have numerous. That has do with A) Andre was better looking and B) Andre played a more interesting and fun game to watch C) He showed emotion on court.

If your brother watches Andy serve 2 aces and 2 unreturnables and thinks it boring, he should have watched the rest the rest of the match. As Andy broke the other guys serve then had smashing baseline rallies and hit winners from all over the court...

jorisv
01-21-2004, 03:57 PM
I personally don't think grass-tennis is interesting to watch, for the same reason: the service is too important. We want so see long rallies, players running, fighting, and nice strokes. Don't we? But I thought they have applied some rule changes already (size of the ball), to stimulate this. The clay specialists are beginning to perform better and better on hardcourts.

How do you ever want to make a talent pool for individual sports? Or do you want to change the format of tournaments? Something like K1: three short matches on one day. Or maybe another way of drawing: not with seedings, but random, and each round a new draw...? Hmmm

RealityRyan
01-21-2004, 04:02 PM
You are a walking contradictory dichotomy

How is are my points contradictory...to make the sport more interesting tennis needs domination by a few. So that way, word will spread about these guys that are great. Once that happens you gain intrest in the sport. That is a fact...

When you have a bunch even guys no one really to much better than the rest playing. What you have is fun interesting tennis to watch for us hardcore tennis fans. No news spreads about the sport. No news will spread about that. That won't be a sportcenter special story. Andre Agassi or Roger Federer winning all the slams in one year is..

RealityRyan
01-21-2004, 04:19 PM
I personally don't think grass-tennis is interesting to watch, for the same reason: the service is too important. We want so see long rallies, players running, fighting, and nice strokes. Don't we? But I thought they have applied some rule changes already (size of the ball), to stimulate this. The clay specialists are beginning to perform better and better on hardcourts.

How do you ever want to make a talent pool for individual sports? Or do you want to change the format of tournaments? Something like K1: three short matches on one day. Or maybe another way of drawing: not with seedings, but random, and each round a new draw...? Hmmm

Yes I agree with the top part. Grass tennis is faster and is harder to come in and watch not being a tennis fan. Where as, hard court, Clay, Indoor more fun to watch not knowing anything about tennis.

Part of getting more interest in this sport is making it more fun to watch. That's why the ATP increased the ball size. Did you know that 3 years ago, a German and American company invented a type of string that was rubber and synthetic blend? The ATP banned it immediately because it would change the nature of the game. It was so grippy that it made shots super accurate and would allow players to place a tennis ball on the court with amazing angles, players could literally place the ball where they wanted.

The ATP knows that this is an entertainment as much as a sport. I like watching grass personally but I agree with the ATP changing the sport when they need too. I also heard that they were considering banning oversized racquets...I think I would be opposed to that…however

No the way to get the talent pool to grow is to increase interest in tennis. The more it is watched and liked the more people will want to play. Tennis has yet to see a super-athlete on the men's side. Someone that is genetically superior to everyone else. That's what I was talking about before top athletes from other sports dog players from tennis in the 40, vertical leap, weight training etc. The numbers are'nt even close. Given those talents if they decided to play tennis they would superior to everyone else. If Allen Iverson or Michael Vick played tennis forget it, there wouldn't be anyone close to them...that's the kinda talent I am talking about.

amethyst
01-21-2004, 06:27 PM
I think you are right that the names of the big female players are better known to non-tennis-fans. But just knowing a name doesn´t make you watch a sport. I know who Tiger Woods is (because I read the newspapers), but would never follow golf. Many of my friends have heard of the Williams sisters, still they don´t bother watching tennis. You still have to like the sport itself. And I enjoy a competitive match on the men´s side much more than a 45-minute-destruction on the women´s side.

RealityRyan
01-21-2004, 06:48 PM
I think you are right that the names of the big female players are better known to non-tennis-fans. But just knowing a name doesn´t make you watch a sport. I know who Tiger Woods is (because I read the newspapers), but would never follow golf. Many of my friends have heard of the Williams sisters, still they don´t bother watching tennis. You still have to like the sport itself. And I enjoy a competitive match on the men´s side much more than a 45-minute-destruction on the women´s side.

Ahhh..a point well taken. But, some people that didn't know about tennis will hear about Serena or Venus. Then they might identify with them and follow it and learn to love the sport. Such was the story with me and AA..

People who are'nt going to like Tennis aren't going to like Tennis, that's true. But, people who don't know about Tennis or that have never really taken an interest in it and have the potential to like it will be introduced to it by seeing those headlines and finding those interesting players and latching on...Then what will happen is you will get the people who like it in enough amounts that even the people who don't like it will have to take notice and watch. For example all your friends love watching Roger Federer or Robbi Genpri play. You don't really like Tennis but, because they get so into it you watch it too. haha sorta like peer pressure. See what I mean? You won't get that as much unless you have a couple name stars that are always in it...(like on the women’s side)

Lastly, Men's Tennis will always be the bigger draw. They hit harder, serve faster, and move quicker. Those are facts. I just find Women's Tennis more interesting with the kind of domination they have over there at the moment.

sigmagirl91
01-21-2004, 07:48 PM
I will watch a men's match anytime, but I feel that the men need more intriguing and compelling personalities and match-ups.
The women get more attention because of the Anna Kournikovas, whose main claim to fame is their sex appeal. The men's side (sorry, ladies, let's be truthful here) do not have any one player who has that same appeal. Someone said that the ATP needs to "sex up" their image. It may or may not work, but I don't know how the men will take that....

Deboogle!.
01-21-2004, 07:55 PM
intersting thought sigmagirl....... with the group of guys they have at the top now though, for the most part, they could do that if they wanted!! ;)

shaoyu
01-21-2004, 08:06 PM
I highly disagree RR, in my opinion Federer is way cooler than those who constantly lose their temper, not to mention his game looks like a piece of art! But Andy's game is even more boring than Sampras!

sigmagirl91
01-21-2004, 08:20 PM
intersting thought sigmagirl....... with the group of guys they have at the top now though, for the most part, they could do that if they wanted!! ;)

And they SHOULD do that if they wanna.... :)

amethyst
01-21-2004, 08:44 PM
Maybe the women get more attention because of the sex-appeal. But imagine someone´s watching a match of these hyped blondes (especially Kournikova herself) just because of sex: they must be thinking tennis is a joke! I exspect them never to watch tennis again.
I must admit that I find some male players very sexy indeed ;), but to sell the sport mainly on sex could be a boomerang.

sigmagirl91
01-21-2004, 08:58 PM
Maybe you're right, amethyst. I'm not recommending, however, that we get some ATP players pose for Playgirl or Cosmo, but most of the current group of top ten players have sex appeal to some extent. Why not use THAT to market their game. You can be sexy without being sexual, if you know what I mean.... ;)

Fee
01-21-2004, 09:03 PM
Well, this whole thread is based on a false belief that Men's Tennis is in some kind of trouble, and it's not. Tennis is an international sport and it is very popular around the world. Just because it can't get ratings in the US doesn't mean there is anything wrong with tennis. To me, it means there is something wrong with Americans, or there is just too much competition from football, baseball, basketball, NASCAR and other prima dona/criminal filled sports of that ilk.

As for Men's v. Women's, no contest. Men's tennis right now is much more exciting and much more popular. So what if more people recognize the names of the Williams sisters. Those people may watch a few of the big matches on TV (Slams), but they are not regular tennis fans, they don't follow the sport, and they don't increase attendance at tournaments. If I had the choice to go to a Men's tournament on Tuesday or a Women's tournament on a Tuesday, I would go to the Men's for sure. Because of the parity in the Top 50 or so, almost anyone can beat anyone, the matches are almost all interesting, and if a match is actually boring (rare) you can always go to the practice courts and watch them workout.

As for marketing, I think that it is high time the ATP recognize their female fan base. While very few of these guys are universally appealing, all of them appeal to somebody somewhere and the ATP should take advantage of that. Most of these guys are attractive with nice personalities. Some are very outgoing and charismatic, some are quieter, yet still charming. Some of them are bad boys that you can't help being drawn to. And JanMike isn't the only one who looks good without a shirt. They should sell that, mixed in with the incredibly wicked tennis they play on a consistent basis. It's better than Baskin Robbins - there's a flavor for everybody.

And Pete Sampras wasn't boring. He was a very private quiet man who let his tennis do the talking. He was very popular for it. And he got as many endorsement deals as he wanted, and turned more down regularly. Why? Because he didn't seek the spotlight like Andre. Andre preferred a faster life and Pete did not. They were different styles of players and different styles of people. It is their contrasts that made them great competitors and brought attention to their rivalry - which is the same thing that will happen with the Roddick-Federer-Ferrero triangle. Thier differences will keep the fans interested.

Well, that was a serious ramble.

sigmagirl91
01-21-2004, 09:15 PM
As for marketing, I think that it is high time the ATP recognize their female fan base. While very few of these guys are universally appealing, all of them appeal to somebody somewhere and the ATP should take advantage of that. Most of these guys are attractive with nice personalities. Some are very outgoing and charismatic, some are quieter, yet still charming. Some of them are bad boys that you can't help being drawn to. And JanMike isn't the only one who looks good without a shirt. They should sell that, mixed in with the incredibly wicked tennis they play on a consistent basis. It's better than Baskin Robbins - there's a flavor for everybody.




My point exactly. I don't know WHAT'S wrong with the ATP in that respect. I think it would be interesting, myself, to see that happen. I think we are seeing some signs of life with those sleeveless t-shirts that some of them are wearing. Is that a start? Maybe.
Besides, it was believed that men don't think women cared about stuff like that, but that turns out to be so not true. The ATP really needs to wake up.

Deboogle!.
01-21-2004, 10:14 PM
Well you see individual players doing it with the photo spreads in Rolling Stone or People or whatever... but it's mostly the American guys - and considering every single one of them is good looking and under 25, I think that's a pretty good way to go. But it'd be nice to see the ATP do it a little.

But then you'd have the complaints of people who say that people should only watch tennis for the tennis and that the looks aren't important.

Ma. Estefania
01-21-2004, 10:53 PM
The hard the hard hitting, big serve, big forehand, offensive type of player is always going to draw more intrest.

I agree with you on this point, I also think that maybe a more agressive player attracts more; and also the ones who show more their emotions, etc., though they take the risk to be called "crybabies" :rolleyes:

But I don't agree at all that women's tennis is in a better state than men's one. Women's tennis is soooo boring, as someone said in the former pages, at men's tennis you could even watch a qualifier ag. a top 10-20 player, because you never know what could happen; but at women's one....pff...I don't even dare to see it because I already know what will be the result of the match.

Women's draw at Grand Slams don't get interested until the 2nd week, while on Men's draw you are at the expectative....because like I said before, you never know what could happen....

Probably for marketing related people, yes, women's one is better than men's one because they have the Willies to promote and sell much better the events, but did you at least read the articles of the last Masters of women? They said there were no people, no assistance at all, it was a mess, it was held at the US and the Willies were playing....then? What happened? Where were the people?

Instead, at the Masters Cup of men, though maybe many people didn't have a clue of who were the rest of players, apart from Agassi and Roddick, at least they assisted, they went, stadiums were almost full everyday, then you can't say that Women's tennis nowadays is in a better state than Men's one....maybe Men's tennis doesn't "sell" itself yet that much, but I bet that if they'd decide to do it, they'd have more popularity; but this is about the sport by itself, the expectatives, the competition, the excitement, the players by what they really are: players; not supermodels..... :rolleyes:

Honestly I feel pity for the WTA....

Fee
01-21-2004, 10:54 PM
>>But then you'd have the complaints of people who say that people should only watch tennis for the tennis and that the looks aren't important. - bunk18bsb<<

Right, that's why I said it should be mixed in with the tennis. Other sports do this, and even some of the individual tournament promos. Shot of the action, candid shot of the personality...back and forth. Tennis is exciting, and fun, and where else can you get that close to the players? etc, etc. And, in the US you could throw in a sentence from JCF or Roger in Spanish or French, somebody somewhere will understand what they say and be drawn to the international flavor of it. The ATP and ESPN are missing out on a huge audience and ultimately the rest of us suffer, being forced to watch each of Andy's matches twice, no matter how boring they are.

Deboogle!.
01-21-2004, 11:06 PM
yea..... and why can't they have live coverage when these guys are live? Andy's my fave player, ok so if he wins I'm happy and I want to see it, even if it's a blowout.... but tape-delayed??? Ew. and they pretend it's live which makes it even worse. The late-night coverage is supposed to be live and it's only been live once and the only reason it was live that night was b/c the Schuettler match was so long that it pushed Andy's into live tv territory. It's frustrating for all of us, even those who like Andy and Andre a lot.

sigmagirl91
01-21-2004, 11:46 PM
But then you'd have the complaints of people who say that people should only watch tennis for the tennis and that the looks aren't important.


And those complaints come from....let me hear everyone say it with feelings....those who are butt ugly without hope :awww:

WyverN
01-22-2004, 12:07 AM
So to get the talent pool to grow and pull in better athletes, Tennis needs to become more interesting. If you look at the Women’s side it's alot more interesting that the men’s side. You have two top players that have separated themselves.


The William sisters grand slam finals have been very boring and have not received good ratings at all in Australia.


I don’t like the state of Men’s Tennis. I think that for it to really become a draw, we need domination by the top Men. Once that happens interest in the sport will rise and the talent pool will grow. Things like making the sport cheaper and adding some slams to the tour would help in raising interest in the sport again as well.


Fool, how exactly will adding some slams to the tour raise interest in the sport?
You really think having 9 slams a year will make tennis more popular? :rolleyes:


I think the game is fine worldwide but in the USA watching tennis at the highest level isn't quite enough for the casual viewer is it?

For tennis to be popular in the mainstream U.S it has to be less polite and a little more "aggressive." I'm talking both from the rules about behavior to the players demeanor.

Nothing brought popularity to tennis in the U.S. like McEnroe arguing with a Wimbledon linesman or Connors telling McEnroe to keep his mouth shut and it could use a dose of that again if you want the popularity of tennis to rise again. Imagine how many more people would watch tennis if say Roddick and Federer truly didn't like each other and weren't afraid to show it on court either. I don't know if it would be good for tennis overall but it would certainly bring the attention of the casual viewer.

sigmagirl91
01-22-2004, 12:20 AM
Nothing brought popularity to tennis in the U.S. like McEnroe arguing with a Wimbledon linesman or Connors telling McEnroe to keep his mouth shut and it could use a dose of that again if you want the popularity of tennis to rise again. Imagine how many more people would watch tennis if say Roddick and Federer truly didn't like each other and weren't afraid to show it on court either. I don't know if it would be good for tennis overall but it would certainly bring the attention of the casual viewer.


You know, I don't picture Roddick being like that at all. I really don't like him, but I can't see him acting like Mac did just for ratings sake.

Deboogle!.
01-22-2004, 12:22 AM
but Wyver, Andy and Roger really DO like each other, and I admire that from both of them far more than if they didn't like each other.

WyverN
01-22-2004, 12:36 AM
I know they do, nothing wrong with that. But tennis would rate far better if they had a consistent rivalry and didn't like each other.

sigmagirl91
01-22-2004, 02:56 AM
LOL, tangerine. While you're at it, why don't you throw in match-fixing and locker room brawls, and you'd have the making of Rocky whatevernumbertheyreuptonow!!!!!

sigmagirl91
01-22-2004, 02:59 AM
Screw the gentleman's club; :devil:

Isn't that what ho-hopping is all about-screwing the gentlemen's club? Or better yet, was there a "gentlemen's club" to begin with?
:scratch:

sigmagirl91
01-22-2004, 03:02 AM
Yeah, and someone should take a closer look at Roddick's racket because it's obvioulsy CORKED.

Imagine the controversy THAT would generate. What would be the punishment for that, a six-match ban. Oh, that's the equivalent of one whole tournament-unless the said ban comes at a grand slam. And, then players like Andre Agassi will be talking about corked tennis racquets... :secret:

Deboogle!.
01-22-2004, 03:34 AM
lol tangy!!!!!!!!

I actually disagree. One of the reasons I like tennis is because it's actually civilized. If there was drama, I'd lose interest really fast.

J. Corwin
01-22-2004, 11:30 AM
I like tennis for the tennis action. I'm fine if there's extra drama, as long as it doesn't take anything away from the game itself.

RealityRyan
01-22-2004, 03:13 PM
I will watch a men's match anytime, but I feel that the men need more intriguing and compelling personalities and match-ups.
The women get more attention because of the Anna Kournikovas, whose main claim to fame is their sex appeal. The men's side (sorry, ladies, let's be truthful here) do not have any one player who has that same appeal. Someone said that the ATP needs to "sex up" their image. It may or may not work, but I don't know how the men will take that....

I agree, that's the right idea. It all help to make the sport as a whole more marketable. I think Anna Kournikova was good for the sport..

RealityRyan
01-22-2004, 03:21 PM
I highly disagree RR, in my opinion Federer is way cooler than those who constantly lose their temper, not to mention his game looks like a piece of art! But Andy's game is even more boring than Sampras!

Fed's game is great. He show no emotion though. He's not interesting or fiery. Loosing your temper is fine, it's great if you can do it and still win. His game looks like art, if you can respect the game. It's easier and come in and watch someone like Gonzo or El Anouyi pound the ball. It's just more entertaining to the lay person. You have to appreicate the game to respect what a Sampras or Federer can do.

RealityRyan
01-22-2004, 03:25 PM
Maybe you're right, amethyst. I'm not recommending, however, that we get some ATP players pose for Playgirl or Cosmo, but most of the current group of top ten players have sex appeal to some extent. Why not use THAT to market their game. You can be sexy without being sexual, if you know what I mean.... ;)

haha, I don't know what the ATP would say about play girl, this is a very traditional sport but, it's the right idea. I defly agree, that's what this sport needs. Publicity...

That's why Kournikova's, Sharipova's, and other Russian hotties are'nt that bad...it gets people to watch and that's what we need.

Conchon
01-22-2004, 04:03 PM
I think the media has a perverse view of "personality." Outwardly flamboyant players do not equate to entertainment, in my opinion. By capitilizing on one type of personality, the tennis media may ostracize many faithful and loyal followers. I say that the tour is fine as is and the best path for tennis is to let it evolve naturally.

RealityRyan
01-22-2004, 04:07 PM
Well, this whole thread is based on a false belief that Men's Tennis is in some kind of trouble, and it's not. Tennis is an international sport and it is very popular around the world. Just because it can't get ratings in the US doesn't mean there is anything wrong with tennis. To me, it means there is something wrong with Americans, or there is just too much competition from football, baseball, basketball, NASCAR and other prima dona/criminal filled sports of that ilk.

As for Men's v. Women's, no contest. Men's tennis right now is much more exciting and much more popular. So what if more people recognize the names of the Williams sisters. Those people may watch a few of the big matches on TV (Slams), but they are not regular tennis fans, they don't follow the sport, and they don't increase attendance at tournaments. If I had the choice to go to a Men's tournament on Tuesday or a Women's tournament on a Tuesday, I would go to the Men's for sure. Because of the parity in the Top 50 or so, almost anyone can beat anyone, the matches are almost all interesting, and if a match is actually boring (rare) you can always go to the practice courts and watch them workout.

As for marketing, I think that it is high time the ATP recognize their female fan base. While very few of these guys are universally appealing, all of them appeal to somebody somewhere and the ATP should take advantage of that. Most of these guys are attractive with nice personalities. Some are very outgoing and charismatic, some are quieter, yet still charming. Some of them are bad boys that you can't help being drawn to. And JanMike isn't the only one who looks good without a shirt. They should sell that, mixed in with the incredibly wicked tennis they play on a consistent basis. It's better than Baskin Robbins - there's a flavor for everybody.

And Pete Sampras wasn't boring. He was a very private quiet man who let his tennis do the talking. He was very popular for it. And he got as many endorsement deals as he wanted, and turned more down regularly. Why? Because he didn't seek the spotlight like Andre. Andre preferred a faster life and Pete did not. They were different styles of players and different styles of people. It is their contrasts that made them great competitors and brought attention to their rivalry - which is the same thing that will happen with the Roddick-Federer-Ferrero triangle. Thier differences will keep the fans interested.

Well, that was a serious ramble.


Alright Men's Tennis is in trouble in the US and the rest world. Ratings have dropped in the last 5 years that's a fact. The sport will not go away and alot of people will always watch it, it's not going to die off....it just might die down. I don't want that, I want it to grow. I think the ATP wants it to grow. The more it grows the better quality tennis you will see.

Pete was boring on the court. No one saw what he did off the court. His play wasn't interesting, maybe that's why he won but, entertainment value, wasn't there. I know Pete was great but, he hurt the sport by being boring on the court.

Yes, I agree a Roddick-Federer-Ferrero rivalry is exactly what the sport needs. In order for that to happen they need to be far better than everyone else so they will always meet in the finals and semi's. They need to seperate themselves and they haven't done that...but yes, that's what the sport needs.

RealityRyan
01-22-2004, 04:10 PM
I think the media has a perverse view of "personality." Outwardly flamboyant players do not equate to entertainment, in my opinion. By capitilizing on one type of personality, the tennis media may ostracize many faithful and loyal followers. I say that the tour is fine as is and the best path for tennis is to let it evolve naturally.

Again wrong....You want the sport to grow? You want to see better quality tennis? You need entertainment, drama, the mix. Why? Because people watch that. That may not be your cup of tea but, in the long run by having drama you get people interested in the sport. The people get interested they want to play, they teach there kids to play and the sport grows, you see...so in the end you get more of what you want. The Tennis media knows this and they love controversy, as do I.

RealityRyan
01-22-2004, 04:12 PM
My point exactly. I don't know WHAT'S wrong with the ATP in that respect. I think it would be interesting, myself, to see that happen. I think we are seeing some signs of life with those sleeveless t-shirts that some of them are wearing. Is that a start? Maybe.
Besides, it was believed that men don't think women cared about stuff like that, but that turns out to be so not true. The ATP really needs to wake up.

:worship:

RealityRyan
01-22-2004, 04:20 PM
I agree with you on this point, I also think that maybe a more agressive player attracts more; and also the ones who show more their emotions, etc., though they take the risk to be called "crybabies" :rolleyes:

But I don't agree at all that women's tennis is in a better state than men's one. Women's tennis is soooo boring, as someone said in the former pages, at men's tennis you could even watch a qualifier ag. a top 10-20 player, because you never know what could happen; but at women's one....pff...I don't even dare to see it because I already know what will be the result of the match.

Women's draw at Grand Slams don't get interested until the 2nd week, while on Men's draw you are at the expectative....because like I said before, you never know what could happen....

Probably for marketing related people, yes, women's one is better than men's one because they have the Willies to promote and sell much better the events, but did you at least read the articles of the last Masters of women? They said there were no people, no assistance at all, it was a mess, it was held at the US and the Willies were playing....then? What happened? Where were the people?

Instead, at the Masters Cup of men, though maybe many people didn't have a clue of who were the rest of players, apart from Agassi and Roddick, at least they assisted, they went, stadiums were almost full everyday, then you can't say that Women's tennis nowadays is in a better state than Men's one....maybe Men's tennis doesn't "sell" itself yet that much, but I bet that if they'd decide to do it, they'd have more popularity; but this is about the sport by itself, the expectatives, the competition, the excitement, the players by what they really are: players; not supermodels..... :rolleyes:

Honestly I feel pity for the WTA....

Sex and sports have always been intertwined. Sex and sports will always be mixed because we as people are sexual. Yes, Tennis players are players but they are also entertainers. It's important to be attractive so fans watch you and get behind you. You don't have to be but, it helps.

Women have it harder I think there is more pressure on them to be sexy, to be attractive. It's not a must, I think everyone knows to get that far you have to be good. It's just when you are there it helps. Everyone knocks Anna because she never won a slam but, she was in the top 20 in the world(pretty damn good) and she won doubles titles. So she can cash in on her looks, because her looks are the second reason she was popular she had to be good at Tennis first.

The Williams have the best name recognition in Tennis right now. In all of Tennis. According to a US today poll the average person will recognize the William sisters before Andre Agassi and that means alot.

RealityRyan
01-22-2004, 04:24 PM
>>But then you'd have the complaints of people who say that people should only watch tennis for the tennis and that the looks aren't important. - bunk18bsb<<

Right, that's why I said it should be mixed in with the tennis. Other sports do this, and even some of the individual tournament promos. Shot of the action, candid shot of the personality...back and forth. Tennis is exciting, and fun, and where else can you get that close to the players? etc, etc. And, in the US you could throw in a sentence from JCF or Roger in Spanish or French, somebody somewhere will understand what they say and be drawn to the international flavor of it. The ATP and ESPN are missing out on a huge audience and ultimately the rest of us suffer, being forced to watch each of Andy's matches twice, no matter how boring they are.

I hate ESPN's coverage!!

sigmagirl91
01-22-2004, 04:24 PM
Andre preferred a faster life and Pete did not. They were different styles of players and different styles of people. It is their contrasts that made them great competitors and brought attention to their rivalry - which is the same thing that will happen with the Roddick-Federer-Ferrero triangle. Thier differences will keep the fans interested.

Well, that was a serious ramble.


I don't know if Andre preferred a faster lifestyle, but I do know that Andre had a more gregarious personality. As for the R-F-F rivalry, it would be interesting to see how that develops. The three of them have different personalities that appeal to different people. It is apparent here, though, that the majority of female fans find JC's body rather sexy. And I do, too, BTW.

RealityRyan
01-22-2004, 04:26 PM
Where are the Spite Girls and the Backstabbing Boys when we need them? I'm telling you, we need a tennis version of Tonya and Nancy. We need more trash-talking, bitch-slapping, and ho-hopping in tennis. Ljubicic needs to hold another anti-Andy press conference. Rios should steal Andre's underwear, paint the stars and stripes on it and run it up the flagpole. Screw the gentleman's club; tennis needs to be more DIRTY, more accessible to the beer-drinking, cheetos-eating lowman scum of the earth. Somebody needs to accuse someone of faking an injury or taking illegal drugs (preferably a Top Ten player) and then start a bloody fistfight on the court. If a fan dies while being trampled to death in the stands from the ensuing hysteria, that'll definitely make the ten o'clock news and viola! Instant ratings bonanza worldwide! Soccer and football fans will tune in by the millions. :devil:

haha, you know you are right. You know you are. People tune in when there is controversy. They do....it's a fact. They don't tune in for good tennis, they tune in to see Mac throw racket and argue with a line judge but, it gets people to play tennis. It gets people to like the sport for the right or wrong reasons.

Prophetic
01-22-2004, 04:27 PM
I hate ESPN's coverage!!

omg...

flying swine

pink elephants

Eminem must be dating Britney and hugging his mother right now while they skate in the ice covered depths of hell cuz for once we are in full agreement about something!!

RealityRyan
01-22-2004, 04:28 PM
I know they do, nothing wrong with that. But tennis would rate far better if they had a consistent rivalry and didn't like each other.


YES!! YES!!! :worship: :worship: YES!! YES!!!

RealityRyan
01-22-2004, 04:31 PM
lol tangy!!!!!!!!

I actually disagree. One of the reasons I like tennis is because it's actually civilized. If there was drama, I'd lose interest really fast.

You would leave and we would gain 5 fans for everyone like you that left...

sigmagirl91
01-22-2004, 04:33 PM
Sex and sports have always been intertwined. Sex and sports will always be mixed because we as people are sexual. Yes, Tennis players are players but they are also entertainers. It's important to be attractive so fans watch you and get behind you. You don't have to be but, it helps.

Women have it harder I think there is more pressure on them to be sexy, to be attractive. It's not a must, I think everyone knows to get that far you have to be good. It's just when you are there it helps. Everyone knocks Anna because she never won a slam but, she was in the top 20 in the world(pretty damn good) and she won doubles titles. So she can cash in on her looks, because her looks are the second reason she was popular she had to be good at Tennis first.

The Williams have the best name recognition in Tennis right now. In all of Tennis. According to a US today poll the average person will recognize the William sisters before Andre Agassi and that means alot.

Ryan, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Women are still looked at as sex objects, and any attempts to turn men into sex objects are met with strenuous objections. Breaking it down, look at what happened with Tommy Haas at the US Open a couple of years back. They let Anna K. and co. wear hip-hugger tennis skirts while Haas was told to take his sleeveless shirt off. What gives here? I think that sucks.

Deboogle!.
01-22-2004, 04:36 PM
Well I disagree. People loved the Sampras-Agassi rivalry and it was relatively peaceful one. They weren't friends by any means but they resepcted each other a lot. They may not have publicly made statements like Andy and Roger do spewing respect, but there was no "drama," no cat-fighting. They just played helluva good tennis.

These rivalries are still developing... to say what is or is not the case at this point is pre-emptive, considering these players are just hitting their greatness and the rivalries are still new.. Hopefully we'll have another 10 years of it to grow and build and mature. Fighting and trash-talking turns a lot of people off, it wouldn't be just me.

There's a lot wrong with Men's Tennis, especially in the USA, but I don't believe increasing negative conflict is the way to rectify any situation.

RealityRyan
01-22-2004, 04:43 PM
Ryan, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Women are still looked at as sex objects, and any attempts to turn men into sex objects are met with strenuous objections. Breaking it down, look at what happened with Tommy Haas at the US Open a couple of years back. They let Anna K. and co. wear hip-hugger tennis skirts while Haas was told to take his sleeveless shirt off. What gives here? I think that sucks.

They are starting to open more. I don't know if we will ever see shirtless tennis in ATP events. I think with the next couple years you should see Tank-Tops and Under Armour on men(tight micro-fiber shirts). With that, I think interest grows. With that I think players do more commericals. With that more people want to play....it's a cycle.

RealityRyan
01-22-2004, 04:47 PM
Well I disagree. People loved the Sampras-Agassi rivalry and it was relatively peaceful one. They weren't friends by any means but they resepcted each other a lot. They may not have publicly made statements like Andy and Roger do spewing respect, but there was no "drama," no cat-fighting. They just played helluva good tennis.

These rivalries are still developing... to say what is or is not the case at this point is pre-emptive, considering these players are just hitting their greatness and the rivalries are still new.. Hopefully we'll have another 10 years of it to grow and build and mature. Fighting and trash-talking turns a lot of people off, it wouldn't be just me.

There's a lot wrong with Men's Tennis, especially in the USA, but I don't believe increasing negative conflict is the way to rectify any situation.

Andy and Ljbuic/Nalbandian. Didn't Andy say something Dave Nalbandy? Call him a pansy or sumtin?

I think the fights and trash talking happens on the court and leads to things off the court. Roger would never do that because Roger is cool and laid back and Swiss, he's mad chill(sometimes to much but another storu).

But if Someone like Nalbandy is fiery, tenious then you get a rivalry where people don't like each other cuz A-Rod can be that way too.

RealityRyan
01-22-2004, 04:50 PM
Well I disagree. People loved the Sampras-Agassi rivalry and it was relatively peaceful one. They weren't friends by any means but they resepcted each other a lot. They may not have publicly made statements like Andy and Roger do spewing respect, but there was no "drama," no cat-fighting. They just played helluva good tennis.

These rivalries are still developing... to say what is or is not the case at this point is pre-emptive, considering these players are just hitting their greatness and the rivalries are still new.. Hopefully we'll have another 10 years of it to grow and build and mature. Fighting and trash-talking turns a lot of people off, it wouldn't be just me.

There's a lot wrong with Men's Tennis, especially in the USA, but I don't believe increasing negative conflict is the way to rectify any situation.

Fighting and Trash talking makes people watch. Dude every body watched Mac and Conners. They loved it, ate it up. That was great. It was kinda like the WWF(WWE now) the two guys talked alot crap before the match and then they always delievered. That's what makes people watch. It entertainment at its best. Andre and Pete very good rivalry but, eh, no. Not like what makes people watch. It made good Tennis but, there is a difference.

Conchon
01-22-2004, 05:05 PM
Again wrong....You want the sport to grow? You want to see better quality tennis? You need entertainment, drama, the mix. Why? Because people watch that. That may not be your cup of tea but, in the long run by having drama you get people interested in the sport. The people get interested they want to play, they teach there kids to play and the sport grows, you see...so in the end you get more of what you want. The Tennis media knows this and they love controversy, as do I.

There is no definitive answer to this question. You may gain a different audience if tennis is exploited in the way others are, but you will also lose many devoted followers. The phenomenon we saw in the '80s with players like Connors, McEnroe, Becker, and others will probably never be repeated. Tennis naturally goes through periods of growth. The current crop of players are perfectly entertainable as is. The tennis media will do better to exploit on each of their characteristic personalities, like they have Roddick. I'm sure not everyone in this world shies away from people with humility and wittiness of charcter. Showcasing a diverse spectrum of personalities will be to the benefit of all involved in tennis.

Unfortunately, the media cares little if any about the improvement of the sport. All they want is the dough and to assume otherwise is naive. I would hate if men's tennis did turn into a controversial brawl, both in the locker room and in the press. This is too much of a classy sport for that.

Conchon
01-22-2004, 05:08 PM
Also, I don't see how drama will do anything to improve the quality of the actual tennis.

Ma. Estefania
01-22-2004, 05:19 PM
Also, I don't see how drama will do anything to improve the quality of the actual tennis.

Yeah, I thought we were talking about the quality of the sport....but I see we didn't. Sorry :angel:

Then...yes, definitely fights, rumours, rivalries, sex, etc. sells; but honestly though men are nowadays wearing sleeveless t-shirts, I don't see the "sex" matter more developed than to that point at men's tour....

Conchon
01-22-2004, 05:31 PM
Yea, unless wearing those sleeveless shirts gives players a boost of testosterone. :angel: I've heard testosterone increases aggressive behavior. :p

RealityRyan
01-22-2004, 05:52 PM
There is no definitive answer to this question. You may gain a different audience if tennis is exploited in the way others are, but you will also lose many devoted followers. The phenomenon we saw in the '80s with players like Connors, McEnroe, Becker, and others will probably never be repeated. Tennis naturally goes through periods of growth. The current crop of players are perfectly entertainable as is. The tennis media will do better to exploit on each of their characteristic personalities, like they have Roddick. I'm sure not everyone in this world shies away from people with humility and wittiness of charcter. Showcasing a diverse spectrum of personalities will be to the benefit of all involved in tennis.

Unfortunately, the media cares little if any about the improvement of the sport. All they want is the dough and to assume otherwise is naive. I would hate if men's tennis did turn into a controversial brawl, both in the locker room and in the press. This is too much of a classy sport for that.


Yes, it is true that there are many answers to the query of getting tennis to grow. I also agree that the current crop of player are entertainable, they have the ability to do that. I am saying they need take hold and serpate themselves. As cool as it is to think that anyone can win any slam at anytime, that's not good for ratings and thus hurts the sport. This sport needs an Enema! We need those rivalrys, that don't exsist now, we need interesting characters that havn't come out yet. We need more people to take an interest in the sport....

RealityRyan
01-22-2004, 05:56 PM
Yeah, I thought we were talking about the quality of the sport....but I see we didn't. Sorry :angel:

Then...yes, definitely fights, rumours, rivalries, sex, etc. sells; but honestly though men are nowadays wearing sleeveless t-shirts, I don't see the "sex" matter more developed than to that point at men's tour....

Yes, it does improve quality. The athletes that play tennis now on the men's side are not even close the top players of soccer, baseball, basketball, football, etc. By getting more people interested in Tennis you get a greater talent pool and thus increase quality of the play. The athletes will get better! Don't think so? What if Randy Moss or Allen Iverson spent their lives learning Tennis? Those are superb athletes we don't have any athletes of that caliber on the men's side...

jtipson
01-22-2004, 06:16 PM
The athletes that play tennis now on the men's side are not even close the top players of soccer, baseball, basketball, football, etc.

That's pretty difficult to prove I think, the tennis players seem to be fine athletes to me, and many of them could have excelled in other sports, but they chose tennis instead. What's the basis for your comparison? (BTW I have never heard of any of the names from the other sports you mention, but I'm not American.)

With regard to "sexing up" the ATP, I think that getting the guys to play without shirts would be just dreadful (personally I'd find it just embarrassing to watch), it would not serve any purpose to improve their game. And surely that would only attract women, in a superficial sense? It wouldn't do anything to pull men away from their other sporting interests.

A rivalry might be very useful, but please spare us from the attitudes of the Connors/McEnroe era. Today's players are generally much more pleasant characters, and therefore much better role models.

RealityRyan
01-22-2004, 06:28 PM
That's pretty difficult to prove I think, the tennis players seem to be fine athletes to me, and many of them could have excelled in other sports, but they chose tennis instead. What's the basis for your comparison? (BTW I have never heard of any of the names from the other sports you mention, but I'm not American.)

With regard to "sexing up" the ATP, I think that getting the guys to play without shirts would be just dreadful (personally I'd find it just embarrassing to watch), it would not serve any purpose to improve their game. And surely that would only attract women, in a superficial sense? It wouldn't do anything to pull men away from their other sporting interests.

A rivalry might be very useful, but please spare us from the attitudes of the Connors/McEnroe era. Today's players are generally much more pleasant characters, and therefore much better role models.

Actually it's fairly easy to prove with the times on the track, vertical leap, weight room, muscle muscle dissection to see how much fast twitch and slow twitch muscle fiber there is, etc. What Tennis has is the best from the small pool it has drawn from. The other sports have larger pools and better athletes. Men's Tennis has some great athletes. Doing things that the normal person could never do. As far as pro athletes go, Men's Tennis does not have athletes of a super high caliber. Alright you have heard of Michael Jordan and David Beckham...do you think Tennis players have those kind of physical gifts? They are good but, not like that...at least yet… I agree however that most of the Top men could play any sport and be really good even a pro. Just because they are great athletes but, they wouldn’t be as good as the top athletes from other sports just because they are that much more talented genetically.

I think sexing up the ATP attracts attentions, which leads to people watching, which leads to people playing which leads to a bigger talent pool. You need to get this sport watched, that's what you need to do. Even if it's for the wrong reasons at first...

Aphex
01-22-2004, 07:16 PM
What tennis needs is successfull players from big markets in the top ten. 3-4 americans, a couple of germans, a chinese, a japanese etc. So I guess the best thing to do is to forbid players from small markets like Sweden, Switzerland and Argentina to play on the tour. Then the consumers in the big markets won't have to associate with people from strange places of which they've never heard.

sigmagirl91
01-22-2004, 07:19 PM
Sounds like the American thing to do, doesn't it?

RealityRyan
01-22-2004, 07:27 PM
I don't like the whole system....we have now...

shaoyu
01-22-2004, 07:35 PM
Ryan I think this type of judgement that top athletes from other sports are much better than top athletes in tennis is quite wild. It's a different sport, it requires different elements to excel. Michael Jordan tried other sports but without much success. Weight lifters may not excel in long running. It's not only about how fast you can run, how much muscle you've got, there are lots more subtle elements that enables one to excel in games such as soccer, basketball or tennis and you have to make balance of them.

RealityRyan
01-22-2004, 08:05 PM
Ryan I think this type of judgement that top athletes from other sports are much better than top athletes in tennis is quite wild. It's a different sport, it requires different elements to excel. Michael Jordan tried other sports but without much success. Weight lifters may not excel in long running. It's not only about how fast you can run, how much muscle you've got, there are lots more subtle elements that enables one to excel in games such as soccer, basketball or tennis and you have to make balance of them.

You can't say that about Mike he didn't spend his life playing baseball. If he did, you can bet he would have had better results. There are certain traits that create a great athlete in any sport, hand eye coordination, leg speed, intelligence, resistance to injury, etc. If you accel in these catagorys you will accel in any sport. That's why I said if those top players like the Randy Mosses, Allen Iversons, David Beckhams, Mike Vicks, Derek Jeter, etc. played Tennis they would have the potential to be the best that the sport has ever seen. The best athletes aren't playing Tennis, they aren’t! I want them too!! The way to do that is to increase interest by the ways I had mentioned.

undomiele
01-23-2004, 01:04 AM
Tennis players are very well conditioned and consist of some of the hardest working athletes in sports. Here's my take on other mainstream sports and how and why I think the assumption that the best athletes of one sport could have easily learned to dominate another (tennis) is just crazy and makes no sense for the most part.

Baseball players are pathetic --a lot of them are plump and are capable of dying of heart attacks at age 40. (And no one in the rest of the world cares for baseball.) They would suck as tennis players. Basketball is good but then you have to be *tall* to play it professionally with precious few exceptions. While that can work in tennis (Karlovic, Todd Martin) tall tennis players, unlike basketball players, can be at a disadvantage cos they're not good with low balls. Besides, fast guys who are impressively tall are much more pressured by society to play basketball from a young age than tennis, and if youre underprivileged, basketball is just more accesible. So Michael Jordan might have been a great tennis star but even if tennis had been tremedously popular around when he was growing up I still think he would have ended up playing basketball over tennis, and if he had been born underprivileged, (I dont know if he was) fat chance he would have had access to tennis courts, training, etc.

I think soccer is the most egalitarian (and i think this contributes a lot to its popularity) because you can be tall, short, stocky, thin, poor, rich, etc to play it. It is a sport that isn't constrained by social class. And it requires a lot of finesse (just in your feet) So i could buy the argument that soccer players can translate well into tennis.Tennis, unfortunately is still constrained by social class cos you still need the equipment, the court, and the training. That is why youll be hard pressed to find tennis players from Ghana. Its not like soccer where you can play with a grapefruit and thrive on instinct. So great athletes who come from underprivileged backgrounds from around the world will probably still just end up playing soccer because of its popularity and accessibility. This also happens to a lesser effect in the US where tennis still carries a stigma of being an upper class sport simply because its expensive to play tennis.

But at the same time tennis players deserve real recognition for what they do. I believe they are a strong second to soccer players in terms of stamina (physical AND emotional) and athleticism cos:

a) their season is long as hell,
b) they travel all across the world unlike other sports that generally stay within the same country or continent
c) they have to contend with playing long-ass matches in 1-to-2 week contests,
d) they have to continually adjust their game to different surfaces
e) they have to be extremely fit --being out of the season for just a month can set a tennis player back big time
f) theyre very prone to injury
g) its not a group sport, its just you and the other guy. Thats it. Because of this tennis players require a lot more emotional strength than group-oriented athletes who can blame/credit other team members for their results. And when the home crowd is against you it can really tear into your performance. At least Beckham can take solace in the other ten players when he's playing in... I dunno.. Italy?
g) tennis requires a lot more finesse than most games. Especially the violent ones. And this is the quality that really matters in tennis. Coria is a tiny athlete by any consideration. But he's number 5 in the world because he knows how to use the racquet to his greatest advantage and is fast. And finesse is the one quality that a lot of the players youve mentioned fail to persuade me of. Except for the golf players and *maybe* football quaterbacks, Michael Jordan, David Beckham and all those guys are good at what they do but may lack the finesse to handle an instrument in their hands and play with it. Just cos Becks has really good feet and stamina doesnt mean he can't be a klutz with a racquet. So to say that the best athletes from the other mainstream sports can easily play tennis (if they had been raised to do so from birth whatever) offends me. Small-time specialized sports like diving (Andy Roddick's brother was a pro diver), javeling/discus throwing, I can buy. I can also buy soccer cos that is probably the sport that requires the most stamina and a lot of finesse (though the finesse is mostly in their feet ;) ) out of all mainstream sports.

So I think you need to give tennis players a little bit more respect Ryan than youve been giving them. With the exception of soccer, not many athletes can claim to fulfill the requirements for emotional and physical stamina (as well as stress, eg: Davis Cup) that the best tennis players in the world have to contend with week-in week-out during the tennis season. Others, like Michael Jordan, would never have ended up playing tennis cos of social pressure and/or the generally better accessibility of basketball over tennis.

Fumus
01-23-2004, 01:21 AM
dude your in a Tennis forum! haha

RealityRyan
01-23-2004, 01:25 AM
Tennis players are very well conditioned and consist of some of the hardest working athletes in sports. Here's my take on other mainstream sports and how and why I think the assumption that the best athletes of one sport could have easily learned to dominate another (tennis) is just crazy and makes no sense for the most part.

Baseball players are pathetic --a lot of them are plump and are capable of dying of heart attacks at age 40. (And no one in the rest of the world cares for baseball.) They would suck as tennis players. Basketball is good but then you have to be *tall* to play it professionally with precious few exceptions. While that can work in tennis (Karlovic, Todd Martin) tall tennis players, unlike basketball players, can be at a disadvantage cos they're not good with low balls. Besides, fast guys who are impressively tall are much more pressured by society to play basketball from a young age than tennis, and if youre underprivileged, basketball is just more accesible. So Michael Jordan might have been a great tennis star but even if tennis had been tremedously popular around when he was growing up I still think he would have ended up playing basketball over tennis, and if he had been born underprivileged, (I dont know if he was) fat chance he would have had access to tennis courts, training, etc.

I think soccer is the most egalitarian (and i think this contributes a lot to its popularity) because you can be tall, short, stocky, thin, poor, rich, etc to play it. It is a sport that isn't constrained by social class. And it requires a lot of finesse (just in your feet) So i could buy the argument that soccer players can translate well into tennis.Tennis, unfortunately is still constrained by social class cos you still need the equipment, the court, and the training. That is why youll be hard pressed to find tennis players from Ghana. Its not like soccer where you can play with a grapefruit and thrive on instinct. So great athletes who come from underprivileged backgrounds from around the world will probably still just end up playing soccer because of its popularity and accessibility. This also happens to a lesser effect in the US where tennis still carries a stigma of being an upper class sport simply because its expensive to play tennis.

But at the same time tennis players deserve real recognition for what they do. I believe they are a strong second to soccer players in terms of stamina (physical AND emotional) and athleticism cos:

a) their season is long as hell,
b) they travel all across the world unlike other sports that generally stay within the same country or continent
c) they have to contend with playing long-ass matches in 1-to-2 week contests,
d) they have to continually adjust their game to different surfaces
e) they have to be extremely fit --being out of the season for just a month can set a tennis player back big time
f) theyre very prone to injury
g) its not a group sport, its just you and the other guy. Thats it. Because of this tennis players require a lot more emotional strength than group-oriented athletes who can blame/credit other team members for their results. And when the home crowd is against you it can really tear into your performance. At least Beckham can take solace in the other ten players when he's playing in... I dunno.. Italy?
g) tennis requires a lot more finesse than most games. Especially the violent ones. And this is the quality that really matters in tennis. Coria is a tiny athlete by any consideration. But he's number 5 in the world because he knows how to use the racquet to his greatest advantage and is fast. And finesse is the one quality that a lot of the players youve mentioned fail to persuade me of. Except for the golf players and *maybe* football quaterbacks, Michael Jordan, David Beckham and all those guys are good at what they do but may lack the finesse to handle an instrument in their hands and play with it. Just cos Becks has really good feet and stamina doesnt mean he can't be a klutz with a racquet. So to say that the best athletes from the other mainstream sports can easily play tennis (if they had been raised to do so from birth whatever) offends me. Small-time specialized sports like diving (Andy Roddick's brother was a pro diver), javeling/discus throwing, I can buy. I can also buy soccer cos that is probably the sport that requires the most stamina and a lot of finesse (though the finesse is mostly in their feet ;) ) out of all mainstream sports.

So I think you need to give tennis players a little bit more respect Ryan than youve been giving them. With the exception of soccer, not many athletes can claim to fulfill the requirements for emotional and physical stamina (as well as stress, eg: Davis Cup) that the best tennis players in the world have to contend with week-in week-out during the tennis season. Others, like Michael Jordan, would never have ended up playing tennis cos of social pressure and/or the generally better accessibility of basketball over tennis.

Alright that's a bunch of bs...I didn't say Tennis wasn't hard and all the other stuff you said about other sports is bull shit! I wonder if you have ever watched anything besides tennis in your life you bias bastard....Yea tennis players are well conditioned and it's tuff but, guess what so is every other sport! It's just the players at the top, the best players of those sports have better genetics and can do things the top tennis player right now could never do...nuff said...next dumb question..

undomiele
01-23-2004, 04:15 AM
Yea tennis players are well conditioned and it's tuff but, guess what so is every other sport! It's just the players at the top, the best players of those sports have better genetics and can do things the top tennis player right now could never do.

Thats right cos the top tennis players now don't have good genetics. :rolleyes: You can't be a real tennis fan if you really believe this. Seriously. This statement says it all. Youre a poser. Youre not a real tennis fan Ryan. Youre a poser. An idiot who likes to cyberbabble hateful nonsense on a public forum who can't even spell his own native language right. (BTW: its "excel" not "accel") So stop embarrassing yourself --you'll be doing us all a tremendous favor.

Now on to content:
most of the players you mentioned as awesome athletes just happen to be american. Well they also happen to play in exclusively american sports. Baseball? Basketball? American football? these are sports no one else in the world plays professionally.
And a lot of us don't care about'em. If the whole world competed in these sports, as they participate in soccer (and to a much lesser degree tennis) then your precious athletes would probably never have made it that far.

Now whats wonderful about tennis is the fact that the tennis field has gotten so deep that no one really dominates (and that to me is a good thing) and surprisingly this has come about ever since the field has become noticeably more international. The late '90'S has seen the arrival of great South American players, an Asian (and that market is growing), and a whole bunch of good solid players from formerly dismissed countries like Switzerland, Spain, Russia and Croatia. The days when Sweden, the US and Australia dominated are over and now its gotten a lot more competitive between players of all nationalities. And this tendency is growing. I think the same thing is gradually happening in international soccer. The african nations in soccer are definitely changing the dynamics in the world cup. With the little money they have compared to the Europeans, the Americans, and even South America, they have definitely made an impact. Why? Because their talent overflows. If they had 1/200 the money the Europeans do they'd be better still. So it might make sense to you, a person who is used to watching american sports with relatively smaller talent pools that tennis has diminished because no one is dominating. I think the opposite is true. No one dominates in tennis precisely because it has a larger and more diverse talent pool that appeals to and involves more countries across the world.

I also don't think men's tennis is going through a "crisis" just because americans aren't watching it as much as before. Because of guga, rios, coria and nalbandian and others, tennis is experiencing a resurgence in latin america. From MY point of view tennis is getting a lot more popular. But then you wouldn't understand that would you? You obviously are incapable of understanding other people's perspectives and arguments (much less argue them coherently).

Shy
01-23-2004, 04:22 AM
It's just the players at the top, the best players of those sports have better genetics and can do things the top tennis player right now could never do...nuff said...next dumb question..
Do you play tennis? Having play a lots of sport, I do say that tennis is one of the hardest and complete sport.It takes power, technique, rapidity,finesse, good coordination and used a lots more tactics than other sport.I often notice that if you're good in tennis, you usually do well in other sports.

Fumus
01-23-2004, 04:29 AM
no but, I kinda see what he is saying tennis isn't really big enough to get the best of the best atheltes. It's certainly not as widespread as soccer, football, or basketball in the states. I don't know if the ways he mentioned are the ways to get a bigger talent pool. I don't think he meant that Tennis didn't require skill... :rolleyes:

Aphex
01-23-2004, 08:21 AM
I think tennis players need to be better allround athletes than football(international) players. There are more diverse movements in tennis. Obviously, football has a larger talentpool. But still I don't think Beckham or Ronaldo or Zidane are better athletes than Federer, Roddick or Fererro. In football you have more specialised skills depending on what position you play. I mean Ronaldo is pretty fat for being the best striker in the world, but he is excellent at reading the game, brilliant technique and certainly has nose for scoring.

sigmagirl91
01-23-2004, 01:57 PM
I don't think that genetics have a great deal to do with being a good tennis player. It takes talent, skill, and desire to make it to the top. If genetics were the sole determining factor, then Roddick would not be the top player, that's for damn sure. So, that argument holds about very little water. Next argument, please.... :rolleyes:

mrpenguin
01-23-2004, 02:13 PM
men's tennis is great. not a single player can win all the slams
right now. we're past the agassi vs sampras era thank god

sigmagirl91
01-23-2004, 02:22 PM
men's tennis is great. not a single player can win all the slams
right now. we're past the agassi vs sampras era thank god

Thankfully, we're out of the Lendl era as well. He bored the shit out of me....

Angelito
01-23-2004, 03:58 PM
RealityRyan if you like soccer or football whatever you want to call it, why don't you just go and post in some site meant to do that.

sigmagirl91
01-23-2004, 04:07 PM
Fee, was that ridiculously long post your master's thesis? :scratch:

Angelito
01-23-2004, 04:16 PM
What tennis needs is successfull players from big markets in the top ten. 3-4 americans, a couple of germans, a chinese, a japanese etc. So I guess the best thing to do is to forbid players from small markets like Sweden, Switzerland and Argentina to play on the tour. Then the consumers in the big markets won't have to associate with people from strange places of which they've never heard.

And then what? Kill all the Jews
Have lot of thing to tell you, but I really can't on this site It would be too rude.

sigmagirl91
01-23-2004, 04:25 PM
Gosh, Angelito, people like that know how to jack a thread up real good. How in the hell did we get on the topic of genetic engineering and country of origin when we are talking about the state of men's tennis. :scratch: , cause I don't know.

RealityRyan
01-23-2004, 04:42 PM
I don't think that genetics have a great deal to do with being a good tennis player. It takes talent, skill, and desire to make it to the top. If genetics were the sole determining factor, then Roddick would not be the top player, that's for damn sure. So, that argument holds about very little water. Next argument, please.... :rolleyes:

What? Roddick has damn good genetics and so does any other pro. To make it that far you have too, hand eye coordination, leap, height, weight, speed, etc. all has to be great. His genetics far exceed a normal person I assure you. To make it that far in any sport they have too. Now compare him to the top players from other sports and you will that he is not as athletic as them but, that certainly does make him or any other player in the top 500 even unauthentic or not hard worker or hard trainers or even untalented. It just means they are not the best…simply stated.

Does anyone in here have any comprehension of what it takes to become a pro?!?

It's a majority of genetics, but then there is also luck and work. Lot's of people work hard and don't make it just because they don't have the raw abilities. God/Nature just didn’t give them the abilities. You can work as hard as you want too but, if you are slow or you don’t have good hand eye co-ordination, yea you can improve, you can improve a lot and max out what you have but, you won’t make it in the pros because they have maxed out a really high ability. It’s like you started at a 1 and then through hard work went to a 3 in Tennis ability. They started at 6 and went an 9 with hard work.

What I am saying here is Tennis doesn't have the people with the most raw talent. I would like to see someone play Tennis with elite natural abilities. Because, we haven't seen that yet…

jtipson
01-23-2004, 05:22 PM
Ryan, an interesting theory perhaps, but what proof do you have?

sigmagirl91
01-23-2004, 05:55 PM
What? Roddick has damn good genetics and so does any other pro. To make it that far you have too, hand eye coordination, leap, height, weight, speed, etc. all has to be great. His genetics far exceed a normal person I assure you. To make it that far in any sport they have too. Now compare him to the top players from other sports and you will that he is not as athletic as them but, that certainly does make him or any other player in the top 500 even unauthentic or not hard worker or hard trainers or even untalented. It just means they are not the best…simply stated.

Does anyone in here have any comprehension of what it takes to become a pro?!?

It's a majority of genetics, but then there is also luck and work. Lot's of people work hard and don't make it just because they don't have the raw abilities. God/Nature just didn’t give them the abilities. You can work as hard as you want too but, if you are slow or you don’t have good hand eye co-ordination, yea you can improve, you can improve a lot and max out what you have but, you won’t make it in the pros because they have maxed out a really high ability. It’s like you started at a 1 and then through hard work went to a 3 in Tennis ability. They started at 6 and went an 9 with hard work.

What I am saying here is Tennis doesn't have the people with the most raw talent. I would like to see someone play Tennis with elite natural abilities. Because, we haven't seen that yet…

HELLLLLOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!! All this stuff you're talking about is pure conjecture. Can you find any solid scientific proof that what you're saying is true?
Just what I thought-no. Obviously, you're grasping at straws with your argument because stuff like hand-eye coordination is a learned behavior, not a natural characteristic (which "genetics" would imply). Secondly, define "raw talent". When I free associate "raw talent" with any tennis players, I think Stefan Edberg and John McEnroe-no explanation needed.
So, please, try again.

Angelito
01-23-2004, 05:56 PM
What I am saying here is Tennis doesn't have the people with the most raw talent. I would like to see someone play Tennis with elite natural abilities. Because, we haven't seen that yet…

Maybe cause tennis is a really, really difficult to play. I mean is not that they don't have "elite natural abilities" It is just that in tennis you just need more than that. And with really hard work you can more or even the level.

I don't know if I am making myself clear...

I think Agassi, Sampras, Rafter, the Williams Sisters, Gabriela Sabatini, they all have natural abilities. But if you're expecting something like Maradona, Pele, Michael Jordan, in tennis; gotta tell you: You're dreaming...

RealityRyan
01-23-2004, 06:20 PM
Maybe cause tennis is a really, really difficult to play. I mean is not that they don't have "elite natural abilities" It is just that in tennis you just need more than that. And with really hard work you can more or even the level.

I don't know if I am making myself clear...

I think Agassi, Sampras, Rafter, the Williams Sisters, Gabriela Sabatini, they all have natural abilities. But if you're expecting something like Maradona, Pele, Michael Jordan, in tennis; gotta tell you: You're dreaming...

I think the Williams sisters are that kinda athlete I am talking about. The elite kind. The only reason why Men's Tennis can't have a super-elite athlete is because
1) Interest in it is not widespread enough
2) It such an expensive sport to play (court time equipment etc)
3) Instruction is not a common as a the other sports so only some people have access

Athletes are Athletes and talent is talent. It's like being intelligent and a great speaker. There are so many feilds that are open to you if you have those traits. You could do alot of things. If you are the best salesmen in your industry it doesn't mean you couldn't be a politician or a professor. It’s just you spent your life going to school being a salesmen and it’s all you know. You never had an interest in being mayor but you have abilities too. You may even be a better mayor than the person in office it’s just you have no interest in that. Traits are traits and they transfer. We will see an elite 21st century athlete on the ATP, someday on the men’s side we will we just haven’t seen it yet.

sigmagirl91
01-23-2004, 06:24 PM
I think the Williams sisters are that kinda athlete I am talking about. The elite kind. The only reason why Men's Tennis can't have a super-elite athlete is because
1) Interest in it is not widespread enough
2) It such an expensive sport to play (court time equipment etc)
3) Instruction is not a common as a the other sports so only some people have access




Uh, Ryan, your argument falls apart with points 2 and 3. I believe that it's equally as hard for WOMEN as for men to break into the sport. If you KNEW the background of the Williams sisters, you would not use points 2 and 3 as your argument. Again, thanks for playing, Ryan, it's been fun-really.... :rolleyes:

Aphex
01-23-2004, 06:25 PM
And then what? Kill all the Jews
Have lot of thing to tell you, but I really can't on this site It would be too rude.
I was being ironic, dude. What I meant was success and popularity usually goes hand in hand. I guess tennis is pretty big in Argentina right now. While I know it isn't in Sweden. The main reason men's tennis is less popular than women's tennis in the US is the fact that 4 out the 7 best women are american. 10 years ago The US had 4-5 men's players in the top 10. Now it's two. Thus slide in popularity.
BTW: I am from Sweden. Tennis is an international sport and that's one of the main reason I like it.

RealityRyan
01-23-2004, 06:34 PM
HELLLLLOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!! All this stuff you're talking about is pure conjecture. Can you find any solid scientific proof that what you're saying is true?
Just what I thought-no. Obviously, you're grasping at straws with your argument because stuff like hand-eye coordination is a learned behavior, not a natural characteristic (which "genetics" would imply). Secondly, define "raw talent". When I free associate "raw talent" with any tennis players, I think Stefan Edberg and John McEnroe-no explanation needed.
So, please, try again.

I am not grasping at straws sigma there is a whole industry devoted to this kinda stuff Talent scouts, Agents, Sport Medicine, Sports training, Athletic training and etc. etc., if the stuff I am talking about doesn't exist why do these industries?

If you asked a talent scout these questions he would tell you what I told you. It's common sense really..

McEnroe had enormous talent. His net ability was awesome, why? Hand-eye co-ordination, his vision, the nervous system in his body was better at taking that stimulus than almost everyone else’s. These aren’t things that can be taught or learned. You can improve on them but not like what you are talking about. John was naturally better at it then you or I ever could ever hope to be. That's why the call it a Talent!

Finally a bit of logic for you, you tell me I am wrong and that I am grasping at straws but, then you go on and name people with "raw talent". If that is so you are admitting there is such a thing, and if there is such a thing you are telling me I am right. That being said some people have more raw talent than others. Ever hear of the “Bell curve”? Whether they put it towards baseball or skiing the talent is there. I am hoping for someone with super human amounts of talent to play Tennis...is all I am saying. I think that could happen if we increased interest in the sport by the ways I said.

Angelito
01-23-2004, 06:35 PM
We will see an elite 21st century athlete on the ATP, someday on the men’s side we will we just haven’t seen it yet.

Gotta tell you I'm not looking forward to that day, I preffer tennis the way it is, highly competitive.
I don't want a super athlete, all this phisical strength madness is leading tennis to high level of dopping and all thouse shits that do nothing more than ruin one of the most beautiful sports.

sigmagirl91
01-23-2004, 06:39 PM
Gotta tell you I'm not looking forward to that day, I preffer tennis the way it is, highly competitive.
I don't want a super athlete, all this phisical strength madness is leading tennis to high level of dopping and all thouse shits that do nothing more than ruin one of the most beautiful sports.


I'm with you on that. Ryan, if that day ever came, then WADA would just have a field day.

RealityRyan
01-23-2004, 06:41 PM
Uh, Ryan, your argument falls apart with points 2 and 3. I believe that it's equally as hard for WOMEN as for men to break into the sport. If you KNEW the background of the Williams sisters, you would not use points 2 and 3 as your argument. Again, thanks for playing, Ryan, it's been fun-really.... :rolleyes:

Do you think the Williams sisters are a rule? Growing up in some ghetto in California and learning to become Tennis masters? That's what made it so incredible, it was unlikely.

Let me you tell you though their father had money. He had money to take the to courts get them training. He fronted it all. Albeit he didn't have lots of money.

Those are great example to prove my point. Two exceptional Athletes that are superior to everyone in their sport. They dominate. Just like I would want the Men’s to do. They come from somewhere were there was little interest in the sport, it was very difficult for them they will tell you that. It would have been much cheaper/easier for them to play soccer or run track. So my point is if you make it easier you will get more Williams sisters types. That's what we need. Thanks for proving my point... :worship:

RealityRyan
01-23-2004, 06:44 PM
Gotta tell you I'm not looking forward to that day, I preffer tennis the way it is, highly competitive.
I don't want a super athlete, all this phisical strength madness is leading tennis to high level of dopping and all thouse shits that do nothing more than ruin one of the most beautiful sports.

Hey wake up, pal! People already are! That will happen no matter what. It has nothing to do with getting the talent pool larger and making the sport grow. :cool:

sigmagirl91
01-23-2004, 06:45 PM
You are SO contradicting yourself. I don't know how in the hell we jumped from point A to point Z on this particular thread, but it's plain ridiculous to argue about genetics. Like I said before, if genetics were the sole factor in determining success in ANY sport, then many who play should not be playing. Got me?

Deboogle!.
01-23-2004, 06:49 PM
sigmagirl, he's so far gone that nothing you say will get through to him, even though you're right. It ain't worth trying.

The ignore button is quite effective :devil:

sigmagirl91
01-23-2004, 06:49 PM
Do you think the Williams sisters are a rule? Growing up in some ghetto in California and learning to become Tennis masters? That's what made it so incredible, it was unlikely.




They are the exception to your point 2 and 3, actually, ryan, because you seem to think that point 2 and 3 apply to EVERYBODY!!!! Which, of course, is not the case. Could it be that tennis for men is not as popular because THEY SIMPLY HAVE NO INTEREST, rather than about some nebulous concept such as genetics.

You sound like a professor of biology, with all this dumb ass shit you're posting. Is that what your college degree is? And judging from the lengths of your posts, you may be trying to complete your master's thesis, as well?

RealityRyan
01-23-2004, 06:51 PM
You are SO contradicting yourself. I don't know how in the hell we jumped from point A to point Z on this particular thread, but it's plain ridiculous to argue about genetics. Like I said before, if genetics were the sole factor in determining success in ANY sport, then many who play should not be playing. Got me?

I am saying no your wrong! All the top players anyone in the top 100 definitely has a genetic advantage to everyone else. You won't make it that far. You have no comprehension of this do you? You have to run a certain speed to get the balls if you don't you won't even play in the top 100 etc. etc. You can't be 5'3" and be a men's tennis player. Even if you are good you just can't be that short! What would you call that? oh that's right genetics!!!

Sometimes the most talented players aren't the best Xavier Malisse or Roger(right now). There are other factors which I listed before, talent and genetics are'nt everything but, you need them just to be in the running.

sigmagirl91
01-23-2004, 06:56 PM
I am saying no your wrong! All the top players anyone in the top 100 definitely has a genetic advantage to everyone else. You won't make it that far. You have no comprehension of this do you? You have to run a certain speed to get the balls if you don't you won't even play in the top 100 etc. etc. You can't be 5'3" and be a men's tennis player. Even if you are good you just can't be that short! What would you call that? oh that's right genetics!!!

Sometimes the most talented players aren't the best Xavier Malisse or Roger(right now). There are other factors which I listed before, talent and genetics are'nt everything but, you need them just to be in the running.

But, hell, you're pushing it like it's the next best thing since sliced bread. So, then, if being 5'3" takes you out of the running, then why can't someone like, say, Karlovic, who's 6'10" dominate the sport? We ARE talking genetics, right?

RealityRyan
01-23-2004, 06:57 PM
They are the exception to your point 2 and 3, actually, ryan, because you seem to think that point 2 and 3 apply to EVERYBODY!!!! Which, of course, is not the case. Could it be that tennis for men is not as popular because THEY SIMPLY HAVE NO INTEREST, rather than about some nebulous concept such as genetics.

You sound like a professor of biology, with all this dumb ass shit you're posting. Is that what your college degree is? And judging from the lengths of your posts, you may be trying to complete your master's thesis, as well?

Dude, I didn't say it was a rule. I said those were problems, hurdles to overcome.

Could it be that tennis for men is not as popular because THEY SIMPLY HAVE NO INTEREST - Hello, I just said that...you realize of course that I am right. Why are arguing you know that the best athletes aren't playing tennis. You know that in order to increase the talent pool in which to draw from you need to increase interest in the sport.

sigmagirl91
01-23-2004, 06:59 PM
Could it be that tennis for men is not as popular because THEY SIMPLY HAVE NO INTEREST - Hello, I just said that...you realize of course that I am right. Why are arguing you know that the best athletes aren't playing tennis. You know that in order to increase the talent pool in which to draw from you need to increase interest in the sport.

Who's to say that "the best athletes" CAN'T or WON'T play tennis? What do you play, mr. it-takes-genetics-to-play-top-level-tennis?
I will admit that I don't play, but comparing to tennis to, say, basketball is like comparing apples to oranges....

Aphex
01-23-2004, 07:01 PM
Access decides what sports you start playing. And it will always be easier to start playing the different kind of footballs than tennis. All you need is a ball and a couple of friends. Talent and hard work decides your success. And talent and ability to endure hard work is genetical. So I guess you're right RealityRyan.

RealityRyan
01-23-2004, 07:01 PM
But, hell, you're pushing it like it's the next best thing since sliced bread. So, then, if being 5'3" takes you out of the running, then why can't someone like, say, Karlovic, who's 6'10" dominate the sport? We ARE talking genetics, right?

That's an excellent example. He's slow and he's acutally too tall. I didn't say you needed to be 6'10" to be a tennis player. Show me where I said that?

I said you needed to have the good genetics. Quickness is more important than height but if you are lacking too much in either you won't succeed.

RealityRyan
01-23-2004, 07:02 PM
Access decides what sports you start playing. And it will always be easier to start playing the different kind of footballs than tennis. All you need is a ball and a couple of friends. Talent and hard work decides your success. And talent and ability to endure hard work is genetical. So I guess you're right RealityRyan.

:worship:

sigmagirl91
01-23-2004, 07:03 PM
I'm just offering an example, Ryan, damn.

Anyway, some short players like, ok, Grosjean, who's listed at 5'7", is in the top 10. He is quick, apparently, so again, your point?

RealityRyan
01-23-2004, 07:04 PM
Who's to say that "the best athletes" CAN'T or WON'T play tennis? What do you play, mr. it-takes-genetics-to-play-top-level-tennis?
I will admit that I don't play, but comparing to tennis to, say, basketball is like comparing apples to oranges....


I am a USTA ranked tennis player in the North eastern region. I love Tennis, I adore the sport. I love watching Tennis and other sports. I am a business major.

Angelito
01-23-2004, 07:07 PM
Hey wake up, pal! People already are! That will happen no matter what. It has nothing to do with getting the talent pool larger and making the sport grow. :cool:

I know it is already happening, but the way it is now it is ok, no just one super athlete, I want lot of them like today.

I don't know what do you espect from tennis? In case you haven't notice yet, there is a ranking and tennis is an individual sport which means there is no space for more than lets say 20 elite players (and I am being really generous), so don't compare tennis with soccer, basketball, etc. where there are thousand of teams each one with tens of players (you do the math).

Besides, believe me, tennis is growing all around the world, maybe not in the US but that doesn't mean is not growing. More and more people is playing tennis but you know... there is still a ranking and 20 elite players...

RealityRyan
01-23-2004, 07:10 PM
I'm just offering an example, Ryan, damn.

Anyway, some short players like, ok, Grosjean, who's listed at 5'7", is in the top 10. He is quick, apparently, so again, your point?

Grosjean, Agassi, they aren't that tall. That has always been a knock against them. They can't generate the kinda pace on their serve as some of the other taller players. They make up for it other skills. Again 5'7" and I think AA is 5'10" isn't short. That's average height but, short for a tennis player because like I said you need great genetics all around. If you are lacking to much in anything you just won't have success in the pro ranks. Lacking to much means average sometimes and other times you can make up for it but, it's still a knock against them.

sigmagirl91
01-23-2004, 07:13 PM
And I suppose that Agassi became #1 by the hair of his chinny chin-chin? Surely, Ryan, you can come better than that.....

amethyst
01-23-2004, 07:15 PM
If I may interrupt your conversation, did you know that Grosjean got thrown out of the French training programm in his youth because of his height? So much for following the genetics ;)
I´m following tennis for just 3 years now and this relativly short period I heard all kind of theories from "experts" how a tennis-player should be built - from small and agile to huge and strong. You can see that players with many different kinds of statures have sucsess in tennis. And all these different kinds of type and playing styles make tennis interesting in my eyes.

RealityRyan
01-23-2004, 07:16 PM
I know it is already happening, but the way it is now it is ok, no just one super athlete, I want lot of them like today.

I don't know what do you espect from tennis? In case you haven't notice yet, there is a ranking and tennis is an individual sport which means there is no space for more than lets say 20 elite players (and I am being really generous), so don't compare tennis with soccer, basketball, etc. where there are thousand of teams each one with tens of players (you do the math).

Besides, believe me, tennis is growing all around the world, maybe not in the US but that doesn't mean is not growing. More and more people is playing tennis but you know... there is still a ranking and 20 elite players...

Wrong there are not 20 elite players, there are 20 players that are ranked higher than everyone else, yea, there are probably 5 or 10 players that are better than everyone else on most days. There is a lot of parody in men’s tennis. Those top guys can be beaten by no bodies because there isn't too much of a gap between them an everyone else. Not so on the women’s side even if Serena isn't playing her best she won't get beat by Suzzie Slowfeet in the second round ever.

RealityRyan
01-23-2004, 07:18 PM
And I suppose that Agassi became #1 by the hair of his chinny chin-chin? Surely, Ryan, you can come better than that.....

What are you talking about? I just told you, he was so gifted. His ability to pickup the ball and take it early is probably the best the game has ever seen. He has great genetics. I just said it was harder to succeed if you didn't have great genentics all around and Agassi pretty much does. He has great genetics all around. He just doesn't have the best a few catagories.

sigmagirl91
01-23-2004, 07:18 PM
If I may interrupt your conversation, did you know that Grosjean got thrown out of the French training programm in his youth because of his height? So much for following the genetics ;)
I´m following tennis for just 3 years now and this relativly short period I heard all kind of theories from "experts" how a tennis-player should be built - from small and agile to huge and strong. You can see that players with many different kinds of statures have sucsess in tennis. And all these different kinds of type and playing styles make tennis interesting in my eyes.

Thank you, amethyst. :)

sigmagirl91
01-23-2004, 07:19 PM
What are you talking about? I just told you, he was so gifted. He ability to pickup the ball and take it early is probably the best the game has ever seen. He has great genetics. I just said it was harder to succeed like that.


So, for the sake of argument, who has BAD genetics?

RealityRyan
01-23-2004, 07:23 PM
If I may interrupt your conversation, did you know that Grosjean got thrown out of the French training programm in his youth because of his height? So much for following the genetics ;)
I´m following tennis for just 3 years now and this relativly short period I heard all kind of theories from "experts" how a tennis-player should be built - from small and agile to huge and strong. You can see that players with many different kinds of statures have sucsess in tennis. And all these different kinds of type and playing styles make tennis interesting in my eyes.

Yea, exactly because those guys know as well as I do that if you are lacking to much you won't succeed. It's a waste of time no matter how much effort you put in. Right on! That's the way everywhere is run. It's just Grosjean was so great moving and striking that he did succeed. Genetics blessed and in some area and made him average in others. Just, don't think for a second that it wouldn't help his game if he was taller. More power on serve, harder lob over you at the net, bigger reach, etc.

RealityRyan
01-23-2004, 07:26 PM
So, for the sake of argument, who has BAD genetics?

The girl that was born blind or the guy that was born without and arm...that's bad genetics. If you are born mentally retarded. That's bad genes, no one that is a profressional athlete has bad genetics. Some have average but, none are bad.

Angelito
01-23-2004, 07:28 PM
Talking about genetics... RR, is there any gene missed in your DNA? The one that controls intelligence maybe...

RealityRyan
01-23-2004, 07:30 PM
Talking about genetics... RR, is there any gene missed in your DNA? The one that controls intelligence maybe...

wow..that's below the belt but considering I got you to agree with me earlier, because I out-duled you in this debate. I would think not any more than what is missing yours.

Angelito
01-23-2004, 07:43 PM
wow..that's below the belt but considering I got you to agree with me earlier, because I out-duled you in this debate. I would think not any more than what is missing yours.

Debate? This is so far of being a debate, believe me...
And the only one you out-duled it was yourself. Can you be any more contradictory with your arguments?

Anyway don't feel so bad about your missing gene your lack of intelligence can be supplied with your extra stubbornness.

RealityRyan
01-23-2004, 07:48 PM
Debate? This is so far of being a debate, believe me...
And the only one you out-duled it was yourself. Can you be any more contradictory with your arguments?

Anyway don't feel so bad about your missing gene your lack of intelligence can be supplied with your extra stubbornness.

Hi My name is Agelita I say stuff that cant be supported. I admit people are right and then I tell them they are contradictory! When I loose an argument I proceed to attack people because I know that I can't do any damage to their argument.

sigmagirl91
01-23-2004, 07:53 PM
Ummmmmmmmmmm.......OK. So, now do us a favor, and retreat BACK to the hole you climbed out of.... :bolt:

Angelito
01-23-2004, 07:56 PM
Nice to meet you. You know, there are a lot of people I bet you are going get along with in this forum. RealityRyan for example.

RealityRyan
01-23-2004, 07:57 PM
Ummmmmmmmmmm.......OK. So, now do us a favor, and retreat BACK to the hole you climbed out of.... on second thought I love you RR you are the coolest :worship:

Awwww...thanks Sigma..

RealityRyan
01-23-2004, 07:59 PM
Nice to meet you. You know, there are a lot of people I bet you are going get along with in this forum. RealityRyan for example, is a great guy and is loved by everyone ;)

wow thanks Ang, those are some kind words...you guys are great!

sigmagirl91
01-23-2004, 08:14 PM
*shaking my head*
Ryan, you're a piece of work....

RealityRyan
01-23-2004, 08:17 PM
*shaking my head*
Ryan, you're a piece of work.......a work of art!! Wow I love you!!

Thanks Sigma

Raoul Duke
01-30-2004, 07:02 AM
That's cool but, that isn't everyone...some people like the fact that men's tennis is full of paridy and so open. As they lay person that isn't into tennis it's hard to follow. It's good for tennis when there are couple big names that grab all the head lines. "Such and Such" did it again. That makes people watch...for better or worse...

Some people like the quality of men's tennis. I follow so many different sports intensively that what I want to see is the best and that is simply not women's tennis. Far from it.

And as i'm sure many already have pointed out (just joined this place so I haven't read this whole thread....my blood is already boiling after reading 3 posts of this kid's utter nonsense!) the state of men's tennis quality wise is excellent!
You got an all time great Andre Agassi battling it out with some of the most exciting talents the sport has ever seen. I can think of no other players, certainly not in my time as a tennis fan, as allround talented as Federer and Safin. You got a young american star who eventhough Gilbert has him calmed down a bit is as charismatic as a young Becker. On clay you have the likes Coria and Ferrero taking clay court tennis to whole new unseen levels. You easily have more than 50 players playing tennis at the highest level.

So ratings are down in the U.S? Honestly deep down I really don't care but from what I've read and heard about the coverage, it is fully understandable. Is it the players fault that they don't get shown. They need to be! There are now more players in the men's game capable of producing high quality tennis than ever before!
Seriously how many women are there? 5 or 6 (ok I realize that is more than ever :rolleyes: )? And a red not very hot army of stereotypical russians? In my mind whoever is covering this should help/guide the casual fans to appreciate high quality tennis (of course impossible if matches don't even get shown!). Basically explain what is going on. My introduction into many sports have been through a commentator enthuastic and knowledgeable. I mean you would think McEnroe would be perfect. Isn't he the U.S commentator? If he can't sell mens tennis to Joe Public I sure as hell don't know who can. Then I just have to conclude that quality isn't what the casual fan really want. I'll have to draw the sad sad conclusion that the casual fan all along simply was waiting for the day when WTA players weren't small fatties running around pushing tennisballs badminton style. Richard Krajicek's words not mine ;)
If so their fault! Their loss!

Ok rant over....

allusion
01-30-2004, 10:23 AM
I think men's tennis is amazing right now. You have this so deemed new generation coming in, full of exciting players looking to fulfil their ultimate potentials, and I'm sure most of them will go on to have long and successful careers and build relationships and so on within the court...nemesis and etc.

Anyway, compared to women's tennis right now - men's tennis is just incomparable. The quality, the competition, the pure excitement and physical challenge and level of play is enthralling.

Aurora
01-30-2004, 10:39 AM
Totally agree with last 2 posts.
For some time now, every time I hear "new balls please" my thought is: don't ask for something that's right there on the court!

Blaze
01-30-2004, 03:47 PM
Hi everyone, i just join this forum the other day and try to catch up on all the arguments so far.

For my opinion on this subject:

1. From a marketing standpoint, i think tennis is doing fine in the rest of the world then the US. This is not the fault of the ATP nor their marketing strategy but rather the fact that the are too manner damn sports in this country.Even high school sports get more air time then tennis. It will also help if ESPN should show more sports that fishing or poker. I am from a realitively small country in Africa but now lives in the US and try to keep up with all sports(Mainly female soccer, tennisand at times basketball or golf). The state of the mens tennis right now is great and will evolve naturally in time.

2. Considering your point (RR) that tennis needs some big or elite name to dominate the sport is against the whole purpose of playing a sport. Sports means competition. When there is lack of competition all the excitement and adrenaline wares of. If people wanted to see domination, they would have easily matched a pro player with a no body. Being a lady a try to follow the womens game but it is always the same old story. Because of the domination of two or three players, there is no competition and no excitement whatsoever. I really think the state of men tennis right now is better with so many talent and competition. It would be sad for the sport of tennis to have a dominant player(s) who would always win their matches. what would be the use of watching it anyway if you already no the outcome. I think right now the unpredictability is very helpful.

Tell me you don't feel excited or nervous as a sport fan should be when you see your favorite player Roddick playing someone like Federer or anyone who has a better H2H record over him?

federerer
01-31-2004, 08:34 PM
I think RR makes some valid points but I cannot agree with everything he says. I believe we are entering another golden age of tennis. I think that tennis will be as exciting as it was in the early 80's given the talent level and youth (fed, rodd, nalbi, jc, safin, hewitt?, and nadal in the wings).
Fact is, americans will only really watch if there are great american players. America loves winners. Make that AMERICAN winners. So, as much as some people hate Roddick for the sake of the sport, we had all better hope that Roddick does well (stays a top 3 player).

I disagree with RR regarding the "athlete". Different sports lend themselves to different talents.
1. Vick is a stupendously gifted football player, but that does not mean he would be a great tennis player or basketball player, etc. Same with Moss, etc.
2. Tennis depends much more on skill than athleticism. In basketball and american football there is a skill element for sure, but in most cases, size, speed and strength are just as important. Perhaps mentioning Tiger Woods and golf would've been a better example, except that tiger is the most skilled golfer as well as being the most athletic.
3. Tennis has had tremendous athletes. Sampras for one (he could dunk pretty easily). Fed for two. Ok, it has had at least TWO tremendous athletes.
4. In your examples, Jeter (and beckham, oh god, half the female population is gonna KILL me) are not super athletes. Jeter is a merely above-average shortshop with sick intangibles. Becks is not even the fourth best player on his own team (ronaldo, zidane, figo, carlos, raul)

As far as Federer's boring on court personality, I think that is a bit over-rated. This Australian open, Federer has been a bit more animated (Allez!) and he is not nearly as self consciously reserved as Sampras. Furthermore, what excites people is not so much the firey personality as the contrasts in personality. Borg never exactly lit the world on fire with his personality but when contrasted with mac and connors, you had some compelling matchups.

I'm not worried about men's tennis. Federer is the most talented player I've ever seen. JC Ferrero and Safin are awesome ball strikers and relatively good looking. Nalbandian and Hewitt and great counterpunchers with tremendous heart. I hope Roddick challenges Fed consistently so that the Americans remain interested so that I can get some decent tennis coverage here in Cali (I'm tired of watching every agassi or roddick match 3 times in a 36 hour span).

darnyelb
01-31-2004, 11:58 PM
I would also hope the other Americans (Dent and Fish especially) step it up to take some of the pressure off of Roddick. Dude can't be expected to hold American tennis up for another decade LOL.

I see what RR is saying but I'd hate for tennis to start appealing to the lowest common denominator. If everyone suddenly became screaming whiners on the court, the sport wouldn't be interesting at all. I like our current mix. Good thing there are tons of international fans or the tour would be going limp.

Raoul Duke
02-01-2004, 08:16 AM
I think RR makes some valid points but I cannot agree with everything he says. I believe we are entering another golden age of tennis. I think that tennis will be as exciting as it was in the early 80's given the talent level and youth (fed, rodd, nalbi, jc, safin, hewitt?, and nadal in the wings).
Fact is, americans will only really watch if there are great american players. America loves winners. Make that AMERICAN winners. So, as much as some people hate Roddick for the sake of the sport, we had all better hope that Roddick does well (stays a top 3 player).

I disagree with RR regarding the "athlete". Different sports lend themselves to different talents.
1. Vick is a stupendously gifted football player, but that does not mean he would be a great tennis player or basketball player, etc. Same with Moss, etc.
2. Tennis depends much more on skill than athleticism. In basketball and american football there is a skill element for sure, but in most cases, size, speed and strength are just as important. Perhaps mentioning Tiger Woods and golf would've been a better example, except that tiger is the most skilled golfer as well as being the most athletic.
3. Tennis has had tremendous athletes. Sampras for one (he could dunk pretty easily). Fed for two. Ok, it has had at least TWO tremendous athletes.
4. In your examples, Jeter (and beckham, oh god, half the female population is gonna KILL me) are not super athletes. Jeter is a merely above-average shortshop with sick intangibles. Becks is not even the fourth best player on his own team (ronaldo, zidane, figo, carlos, raul)

As far as Federer's boring on court personality, I think that is a bit over-rated. This Australian open, Federer has been a bit more animated (Allez!) and he is not nearly as self consciously reserved as Sampras. Furthermore, what excites people is not so much the firey personality as the contrasts in personality. Borg never exactly lit the world on fire with his personality but when contrasted with mac and connors, you had some compelling matchups.

I'm not worried about men's tennis. Federer is the most talented player I've ever seen. JC Ferrero and Safin are awesome ball strikers and relatively good looking. Nalbandian and Hewitt and great counterpunchers with tremendous heart. I hope Roddick challenges Fed consistently so that the Americans remain interested so that I can get some decent tennis coverage here in Cali (I'm tired of watching every agassi or roddick match 3 times in a 36 hour span).

Great post!

sigmagirl91
02-01-2004, 11:11 PM
Raoul, that was a great post. I especially with you on your closing thought. I think that ESPN insults the American tennis-viewing public by thinking that all we want to see is Agassi or Roddick (maybe not INSULT; more like IGNORES)....

hmmm
02-16-2004, 08:39 AM
Ryan you really do need to climb out of that cave your living in because you cant judge the state of mens tennis by stupid ratings in the US. The US is not the only country in this world and just because there isnt much interest there as you would like it to have does not mean the sport is in a hole. All it shows is that sports lovers in the US and those who run American tv networks need a wake up call.

I dont know how one super athlete (or whatever you would like to call this being that you wish to exist) would help tennis. If anything that would turn viewers off. Who wants to watch predictable tennis? What sort of entertainment is that? When the William sisters were doing so well all it did was turn the majority of viewers off (possibly a generalisation) that is viewers outside of the US because every womens match was predictable and therefore lost the entertainment value. I cant argue that the Williams sisters were not good for American tennis but as a whole for Womens tennis across the globe they were not necessarily a good thing....(not taking anything away for them- they are legends and deserve everything they have achieved and more).

Ryan I dont understand how you can argue such nonsense. I think mens tennis is about to reach one of its best stages. In the oz open crowd records are continuing to be smashed. I dont know but you dont need to be an idiot to understand that this is a postive thing showing that the sport is growing and is reaching a greater audience. More and more players are coming out of countries where tennis is not popular at all and so interest is expanding in the sport.

What is so great about tennis today is that there is so much talent some not even at their peaks, to me that is what is making the game so exciting...this new generation of players.

End of rant sorry just had to get that off my chest. :D

hmmm
02-16-2004, 08:48 AM
Also forgot to add that Im a big fan of Becks but I cant help but laugh at some of your comments RR. As much as I would love Becks to be a legend he isnt! To me Becks is like Kournikova but a very successful and talented one- not the best and slightly overrated. There are alot of players out there who I are more talented than he is but dont get nowhere near as much exposure as him and so I dont think he deserves all the limelight.

Becks I still love you! :lol: